Dynadot

2023 UDRP roundup and one more for luck?

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
12,640
The end of the year is a convenient time to look back and ask, "What on earth did I do all year?"

I never used to keep count of these things, because I've been afraid to jinx myself, but to promote Nat Cohen's fantastic UDRP.tools database, I thought I would plug in my name as Respondent representative and take a look in the rearview mirror, including one case that started in 2022, but I'm including because the response was filed in 2023. The UDRP cases I defended, and which went to a decision were:


Domain Case Date Decision
livingedge.comWIPO D2023-41332023-12-11Complaint denied
demoji.com WIPO D2023-40982023-11-16Complaint denied
beds.com NAF 20621682023-11-02Claim Denied
viben.comWIPO D2023-21082023-07-13Complaint denied
healthyr.com WIPO D2023-18022023-06-26Complaint denied
vbg.com NAF 20463272023-06-22Claim Denied
websec.com WIPO D2023-08132023-05-01Complaint denied
gotohale.com WIPO D2023-00842023-04-20Complaint denied
mundonatural.com WIPO D2022-49582023-04-14Complaint denied
gaggle.com WIPO D2023-05452023-04-03Complaint denied
iloveart.com WIPO D2022-46322023-02-22Complaint denied

The ones in bold were RDNH decisions. Cases in which I represented a respondent where the case was settled and did not go to a decision are, of course, confidential.

Sometimes, people get annoyed when they don't like my opinions on trademark issues, and accuse me of being "paid off" or working for moneyed interests, but you'll notice that all of the disputes I defended in 2023 were for individuals against large companies (with the exception of livingedge that involved a very strange individual complainant). Some of them are names you might recognize, like DomainSherpa Ammar Kubba or longtime domainer Stanley Pace. But quite a few weren't "domainers" at all, but just ordinary domain registrants who registered names in the course of their ordinary business (websec, gotohale). Some were difficult, some were easy, and one of them - as I do for at least one case every year - was defended free of charge. Nobody is getting rich doing these things.

On the complainant side, I do take a couple of those on referral from the firm that I left back in 2005 to work on my own, and from others who are referred to me by other clients.

Domain Case Date Decision
chai-app.comCAC 1059002023-11-21Accepted (Transfered)
tailwinduikit.comNAF 20579702023-09-14Transferred
quickcpu.net NAF 20522932023-08-15Transferred
goodnaturedselects.comWIPO D2023-08102023-04-20Transfer
newstreamlight.com WIPO D2023-00702023-02-22Transfer

So, the overall UDRP combined offense/defense score for the year 16 for 16. Some years are better than others, but this one was pretty good.

Of my currently-pending cases, I believe there is one more which is ripe for a decision and I'm hoping that WIPO will manage to get it out before the end of the year, because of all the cases I defended this year, it is absolutely the most fun one. So, we'll see if the holiday elves can find one more present under the tree. If my general luck is any guide, there's a good chance it hits my inbox as soon as I hit "post" on this one. We'll see if this shakes it out...
 
51
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Last edited:
1
•••
But, Brad, you have to consider the facts set forth in the Complaint...

Screenshot 2024-01-03 at 11.59.55 AM.png

Screenshot 2024-01-03 at 12.00.12 PM.png
 
6
•••
For all you squirrel fans out there...
Screenshot 2024-01-03 at 12.09.15 PM.png
 
4
•••
1
•••
The term Domain Squatting had been thrown around for many years as the chosen derogatory term for domainers without any reference to registration dates, generic wording etc. You were labelled as a opportunistic Piranha by just about anyone you mistakenly included in your confidence, I think now there is more of an awareness of just how much time and effort goes into registering valuable domains. Further more those that don't understand, accept that, so don't try to judge. Yep, we can blame the press of the late 1990's and early 2000's. for just that - The Bad Press

It's taken a long time for pure Investment logic to filter through to just about anyone outside the domain circle. What they don't know they are less inclined to cast judgement on, unfortunately many business owners, Ceo's are left behind in their thinking and still think it's open season on domain investors. Unfortunately for them there is far too many good historical judgements being recorded thereby influencing future acceptance and those that frivolously file complaints are now called to account.

So Onwards and Upwards is the road ahead. But it has become a bit like Bitcoin halving, there's less and less pickings as time goes on. Today I rarely even look for domains to much effort for far too little probability of value.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
For all you squirrel fans out there...
Another coffee spit take (it was cold...waiting on a fresh pot). Now I can only thing of 'squirrels nipples'. :xf.grin:

Going now to see if the .com is taken.
 
1
•••
The full decision has been posted by WIPO:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2023/d2023-4528.pdf

- the record suggests that the Complainant bought these proceedings because its offer of USD 1,000
for the disputed domain name had been rejected by the Respondent
. The Panel notes that the
Complainant’s offer did not contain any allegation of wrongdoing on the part of the Respondent in its
registration and use of the disputed domain name and was made some 23 years after the Respondent’s
registration of it. Having recourse to proceedings under the Policy following an unsuccessf ul attempt to
purchase a domain name is sometimes ref erred to as a “Plan B”. See for example, BERNINA International
AG v. Domain Administrator, Name Administration Inc. (BVI), WIPO Case No. D2016-1811. This can be a
further factor pointing towards a finding of RDNH.

...The overall impression is that the Complainant has simply not understood the Policy and the burden it has to
meet. For this reason, by a very narrow balance, the Panel declines to make a finding of RDNH.



---

So, to be fair, the Complainant was represented by a 100 year old Italian intellectual property law firm. What the Panel is saying is that we can't expect Italian lawyers to know what they are doing. That would be holding them to an unfair standard. We can't expect them to do things like understand basic principles or look up prior cases.

The Panel is also telling us it is unreasonable to expect Italians generally to know that "Roberto" is a common name. Who would know such arcane facts? According to name statistics sites, the Italians name around 1% of their children "Roberto". But perhaps they have large families and can't keep track of their names, so they forget how many Robertos are running around loose in the streets of Milan and only recognize it as a brand of breadsticks.

But, you see, the Complainant's lawyers "simply didn't understand the Policy". I can relate to that.

Just the other day, I fancied myself a bus driver and after running down several pedestrians it dawned on me that maybe I just didn't understand how to drive a bus. This was surprising, because I have a bus driver's hat, and a whole stack of business cards advertising my services as a bus driver. So, despite having the hat, the business cards, and even a badge on my jacket that says "John Berryhill, bus driver" you can imagine my surprise at finding I had no idea what I was doing. Fortunately, I explained this to the police who all understood that I couldn't be held responsible for the alarm and expense my incompetence inflicted on others.

Tomorrow, I think I'll try my hand at being a surgeon.
 
15
•••
Just the other day, I fancied myself a bus driver and after running down several pedestrians it dawned on me that maybe I just didn't understand how to drive a bus. This was surprising, because I have a bus driver's hat, and a whole stack of business cards advertising my services as a bus driver. So, despite having the hat, the business cards, and even a badge on my jacket that says "John Berryhill, bus driver" you can imagine my surprise at finding I had no idea what I was doing. Fortunately, I explained this to the police who all understood that I couldn't be held responsible for the alarm and expense my incompetence inflicted on others.

Tomorrow, I think I'll try my hand at being a surgeon.

The Berryhill sarcastic humor is still the best in the industry! ;)
 
5
•••
@jberryhill
I read most of times that both parties must pay if RDNH is found to be the case, what does this mean exactly?
Thank you!
 
0
•••
I read most of times that both parties must pay if RDNH is found to be the case, what does this mean exactly?

I have no idea what that means.

There are no monetary penalties in a UDRP. There would be no way to enforce them.

The only payments involved in a UDRP are whatever the complainant has to pay in order to file the complaint. If the complainant has requested a single member panel, and the respondent wants to increase that to a three member panel, then both parties are required to pay half the total fees (inclusive of whatever fees were already paid by the complainant).
 
5
•••
I have no idea what that means.

There are no monetary penalties in a UDRP. There would be no way to enforce them.

The only payments involved in a UDRP are whatever the complainant has to pay in order to file the complaint. If the complainant has requested a single member panel, and the respondent wants to increase that to a three member panel, then both parties are required to pay half the total fees (inclusive of whatever fees were already paid by the complainant).
Can one defend himself just to not request 3 panelists and pay for them?
 
0
•••
Can one defend himself just to not request 3 panelists and pay for them?

You can defend yourself no matter how many panellists are involved in the desicion.

Requesting 3 panellists merely means you're ruling out a single 'rogue' panellist will make a bad judgement.
 
2
•••
Yes, there is no charge to reply to a UDRP.

If the complainant paid for a single member panel, then you’ll get a single member panel. If the complainant paid for a three member panel, then you’ll get a three member panel.

If the complainant paid for a single member panel and you want a three member panel, then you have to pay half the total fees for a three member panel.
 
7
•••
0
•••
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back